Commonwealth v. Hanible
30 A.3d 426
| Pa. | 2011Background
- Appellant Ronald Hanible was convicted of first-degree murder for Wise and second-degree murder for Walters, along with robbery counts, after a trial that heavily featured Wiley’s police statement implicating him.
- Wiley testified at trial but repudiated his police statement; the Commonwealth impeached Wiley with his signed statement and with Detective Mangold’s testimony that Wiley’s statement was obtained without coercion.
- Physical evidence included hats and sunglasses recovered at the scene identified as Appellant’s by McCants, who was at her aunt’s home moments before the shootings.
- Appellant’s new PCRA counsel obtained a new-penalty-hearing commitment; the PCRA court eventually dismissed guilt-phase claims without a hearing under Rule 909, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed the denial of relief.
- Appellant raises sixteen sub-issues across numerous ineffective-assistance claims, prosecutorial misconduct claims, and evidentiary challenges, all ultimately rejected on the merits or waived; Justice Greenspan’s prior penalty-hearing ruling and subsequent reassignment influenced the procedural posture.
- The majority affirms the PCRA court’s dismissal of guilt-phase PCRA claims; Justice Saylor files a dissenting opinion calling for an evidentiary hearing on certain issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance for challenging conviction on due process grounds | Hanible contends trial counsel failed to argue due-process-based insufficiency of Wiley’s statement | Commonwealth contends the claim is subsumed within sufficiency challenges already litigated and counsel’s strategy was reasonable | No reversible error; claim rejected as lacking prejudice and reasonable basis; not entitled to relief |
| Ineffectiveness for failing to object to admission of Wiley’s statement as substantive evidence | Lively-admissibility of prior inconsistent statement not satisfied; failure to object prejudiced defense | Wiley adopted the statement by signing; admissible under Lively; cross-examination available | Claim rejected; evidence admissible and counsel not ineffective |
| Ineffectiveness for failing to impeach Wiley with background of Wiley and McCants | Failure to investigate or present impeachment evidence undermined credibility of key witness | Evidence offered was either cumulative, irrelevant, or would have harmed defense strategy; no prejudice shown | Claim rejected; no ineffective-assistance demonstrated |
| Prosecutorial misconduct during closing and Detective Mangold testimony | Prosecutor improperly vouched for witnesses and misstated record evidence | Remarks were responsive to defense arguments and within fair prosecutorial discretion | Claim rejected; no reversible error determined; curative instructions given |
| Batson challenge to peremptory strikes | Prosecutor struck disproportionately more African American venirepersons; systemic bias alleged | Record insufficient under Spence/Uderra to prove actual purposeful discrimination; jury included substantial minority representation | No Batson violation; no evidentiary hearing warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (establishes the standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (confrontation clause; prior statements testifying witnesses tested on cross-examination)
- Commonwealth v. Grant, 813 A.2d 726 (Pa. 2002) (abrogated prior rule on when to raise ineffective-assistance claims; PCRA scope clarified)
- Commonwealth v. Lively, 610 A.2d 7 (Pa. 1992) (admissibility of prior inconsistent statements for substantive use requires specific conditions)
- Commonwealth v. Ragan, 645 A.2d 811 (Pa. 1994) (prior inconsistent statements admissible as substantive evidence when signed and adopted or contemporaneously recorded)